Science: Explanation versus obfuscation

Wouldn't you agree that, by number of posts, that you "dominate" most every thread? You don't have to comment on every post in every thread. Most other members don't do that.

You can do it of course, as could most other members. They just don't. That's all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I haven't missed any point, James R. I have chosen not to address the point you were making in response to my comment because it was irrelevant, an irrelevancy that showed that you missed the point of what I was saying. But, hey, whatever helps you sleep better, right?

No, he doesn't. Do you not know the difference between is and can be? He was also clearly being facetious, but maybe you missed that as well? Or maybe you didn't and are just trying to make people look bad by taking things literally when it suits you to?

Ah - so now you address the point of what I said. Well done, you, for finally getting the point.
To answer: The obvious answer to me is that some people want to discuss non-science with a scientific approach, and don't seem to like it when others don't, given that they thought the site's rules effectively required it. Hence the crying. Crocodile tears, mind you, and metaphorically, of course.

If that's the most obvious reason to you then, okay, sure, whatever.

Ah, yes, you still think I missed that point. How cute. Note: choosing to ignore something is not the same as missing it. Just something I think you should be aware of.
Anyhoo, unfortunately you're not educating the right people, James R, and are as guilty of crying as the others.

Then why comment about me missing the point and go on about education? It couldn't be because you missed my point and in doing so made some irrelevant comment about education, is it? Oh, heaven forbid that should be the case.

And you think you're educating the people that I am saying are crying about this sort of thing, do you? You've pointed out to them that since something is identified as pseudoscience that there's little point in trying to argue with those people from a scientific point of view, given that what they're arguing about is not scientific? You've think you've done that? And not continued to argue along with them on grounds of science?
Or have you, as I now still suspect, missed my point entirely? But, hey, whatever. No biggie.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that any of that was done here. It was a more general discussion.

I moderate a skydiving forum with much the same rules. We now have an automated system where warnings accumulate until they result in longer and longer posting bans. We reserve direct action for some of the things listed above - child porn, pedophilia etc. (There are, of course, endless arguments over whether a given post was a personal attack, or violated the rule on pedophilia etc.)

 

Noone's worked harder, except for James, to get me infracted and banned than you have. The record speaks for itself. In fact, this whole thread is but another whiney attempt to censor me from this forum. Admit it. You can't stand that I post here.

 

False. I don't want you infracted or banned; I want you to post in good faith and not troll. That's entirely on you and your level of grownupness.

 

The record shows that, when you post in good faith, with constructive content, I am FIRST in line to respond enthusiastically and in good faith. I go to lengths to not only answer your questions accurately and concisely but try to keep the thread on topic for the benefit of resolving your questions.

I see a distinction between Magical Realist the man and Magical Realist the troll. (Do you?)

 

I don’t believe that space aliens, if they exist, are visiting earth. I’ve stated that a number of times. It’s far more curious to speculate on if some of these sightings are advanced technology from other earthlings, outside of North America. Either way though, there isn’t much in the way of evidence other than grainy footage/pics and eyewitness reports, so again - the UFO thread would have ended ages ago. It’s posted in the appropriate section which allows for more creative discussion. Interestingly, it’s the most frequented section on this science forum. *shrug*

 

I know. Which is telling.

You don't try to defend your belief so much as you try to defend the promulgation of mystery.

Yes. An argument can be made that the loss if many good rational members is an effect of the harbouring and enablement of woo enthusiasts here.

 

I’ve shared my opinions on that subject many times, but you seem to want us all to subscribe to your way of debating. I don’t have to defend anything, it’s discussion that is fine with me. If people disagree, that’s also fine with me.

You prefer debate, arguing and so on which is also fine, of course. But, the fringe section is a little more liberal than that, why do you feel that we all need to apply such rigorous debate there?

 

That's a door that swings both ways. Note you also have a tendency to come down on James and I for wanting to actually find answers. We get to do that. And we get to call out discussion that flies in the face of the SciFo ethos.

I don't know about 'rigorous debate' but if someone lies, or says something that is obviously irrational (such as, say, 'I can't see wings in this blurry image, therefore it can't be any known technology') then we get to call that out. That's not rigorous debate - that's simply maintaining some rationality and good faith discussion. We get to do that too.

Y'all have the privilege to say what things you want - but that doesn't mean y'all have the privilege for it to go unchallenged. Agree?

 

I don’t “come down” on anyone here for wanting answers, rather it’s the use of ad homs and flaming, that go virtually unchecked. There’s simply no reason for any of it, if your arguments stand for themselves. And I’ve also agreed with much of what you both post - I’m more of a skeptic when it comes to many of the eyewitness reports, but there’s no need to call MR names in order to defend my position.

So, again, why not close the UAP thread, then? If it flies in the face of SciFo ethos.

Agree. But, don’t forget polite discourse. Disagreement and pointing out erroneous thinking doesn’t need to be insulting.

 

Because hate the playuh, not the game?
Should one disruptive troublemaker cost the rest of SciFo members some good discourse?

 

I don’t think he causes as much trouble as you perceive, plus he was the original starter of said discourse. lol

What does he need to change about his interaction on here, that would make for better discourse?

 

I’ve just noticed this link but it sort of aligns with this discussion…

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/e...from-posting-in-the-science-subforums.144700/

In other words, everyone has a voice here, but stay in the appropriate lane, which MR does.

 

I'm not sure what difference either of those things make.
He disrupts good faith discourse enough that a number of object, citing rule violations.
How does being the starter of a thread excuse bad behavior?

I think that particular question has been addressed to-death. You can't really think you don't know what I - or others - take umbrage with, can you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes. The only member I know of that this has been enacted upon is river.
So, yes, it does happen.

Thing is, it doesn't quite apply here - since MR keeps his nose pretty clean outside the Fringe fora. (And of course, I treat him with due respect whenever he does so.)

 

*I* have an idea, yes - but, I’m not sure why the fringe section exists if members are expected to follow the same rules as the hard science sections. Where are the forum rules for that particular (fringe) section? I don’t see them posted anywhere in the UFO sub-forum, either.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I would point out that, really, only one member is having trouble living within the forum requirements for critical thinking and not lying or trolling.

Yazata, as just one example, is quite eloquent and erudite in his championing of the enthusiast's cause. Except for the occasional time when he acts as an apologist for MR's behavior, the rest of us are quite fine being civil and arguing in good faith even while disagreeing with his conclusions. You are a notable other example. You have managed to not lie or troll even once, as far as we can tell.

So, it certainly can be done. That's how it's supposed to be done.

And it also highlights the fact that skeptics here are not just categorically against enthusiast's arguments. We discern between good faith disagreement and bad faith disagreement. I'd say that is an example skeptics holding themselves to the highest standard of civil discussion.